RESUMEN
Background and objectives Recently, both surgical and non-surgical interventions have gained popularity in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement, but there is no randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing both modalities in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) during maxillary canine retraction. Therefore, this trial aimed to assess the PROMs associated with either low-level laser therapy (LLLT) or piezocision-assisted acceleration in the context of maxillary canine retraction. Materials and methods This was a single-blinded, single-center, three-arm RCT. A total of 54 patients (12 males, 42 females, mean age 20.65 ± 2.85) whose treatment needed upper-first-premolar extraction to facilitate canine retraction were enrolled and randomly divided into three groups: piezocision group (PG), LLLT group (LLLTG), and the control group (CG). Standardized questionnaires using a visual analog scale were distributed to patients at five assessment times: 1 (T1), 3 (T2), 7 (T3), 14 (T4), and 28 days following the canine retraction initiation (T5). The patients' pain, discomfort, swelling, chewing difficulty, satisfaction, and acceptance were recorded. Results Regarding pain and discomfort, the levels were significantly lower in the LLLTG during the first two weeks of canine retraction compared to the other two groups (p<0.017). At the same time, these levels were significantly greater in the PG than the CG in the first week of canine retraction (p<0.017). Patients in the PG had a "mild to moderate" perception of swelling at T1 and T2, which was significantly different than that of the other two groups (p<0.001). Regarding chewing difficulty, the levels in the LLLTG were significantly lower than those in PG at the first three assessment times (p<0.017). Patients' satisfaction with canine speed was significantly greater in the intervention groups compared to the CG (p<0.001). In contrast, no statistically significant differences were found between the three groups regarding satisfaction with gum appearance surrounding the canine (p=0.061) and acceptance (p=0.125). Conclusion The LLLT-assisted canine retraction was associated with significantly lower negative patient-reported outcomes during the first two weeks of retraction than piezocision-assisted retraction. However, the levels of pain and discomfort were significantly greater in the piezocision-assisted retraction group than those in the conventional canine retraction group, which in turn were greater than those with the LLLT-assisted canine retraction group during the first week of retraction. Patient satisfaction and acceptance were high with both piezocision and LLLT interventions.
RESUMEN
(1) Background: This study aimed to compare patient-reported outcome measures when accelerating en masse retraction between the piezocision procedure and the subsequent application of low-level laser therapy (FC+LLLT), with the piezocision alone (FC), and in a control group. (2) Methods: A three-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted involving 60 patients (41 females and 19 males) with Class II division I malocclusion. The en masse retraction was performed using NiTi closed coil springs attached to miniscrews. The LLLT was performed using an 808 nm Ga-Al-As diode laser. Patient responses regarding pain, discomfort, swelling, and chewing difficulties were reported at ten assessment points. (3) Results: The greatest pain levels were observed 24 h after the application of force during the first and third months of retraction. The mean pain, discomfort, swelling, and chewing difficulties were significantly smaller in the control group than in the FC and FC+LLLT groups. High satisfaction levels were reported in all three groups (p < 0.05). (4) Conclusions: The accelerated en masse retraction via piezocision, followed by a small course of LLLT, was accompanied by significantly fewer pain, discomfort, and chewing difficulties than the control group. LLLT is a valuable addition to piezocision, with an improved patient experience.
RESUMEN
This study provides valuable insights into the cosmetic impact of orthodontic appliances on job-hiring prospects in Saudi Arabia. Both ceramic braces and clear aligners are considered cosmetic corrective devices compared to traditional metallic braces. This survey-based, cross-sectional study used two models, one male, and one female. Four standardized smiling frontal photographs were taken for each model: one without any appliance and three with different orthodontic appliances (i.e., metal braces, ceramic braces, and clear aligners). The photographs of each model were shown to potential employers, followed by three questions for each photo to assess the employers' views on the applicants' professionalism, communication skills, and the likelihood of being hired. The survey was distributed via an electronic questionnaire to employers in Saudi Arabia, collecting feedback from 189 participants. The sample was collected from October 2022 to February 2023. The models' scores while wearing metal and ceramic bracket appliances were significantly lower than when the models were wearing clear aligners or were not wearing any appliance in each domain. In conclusion, orthodontic appliances have cosmetic implications that affect job-hiring prospects, with a higher chance of being hired if the candidate does not have an orthodontic appliance.